Worried About Wind Turbines (New York, Malone: fit in, sale, insurance)

[JustSayNo]

Nah, I am far from a chicken-little. And I am glad that the Amish near you are a bit more progressive than the, for lack of a better word, devout down in PA, Lancaster area.

OK, back to alternative energies and turbine placement.

[JustSayNo]

Honey et all, in Delaware County the turbine issue is heating up and everyone is on the edges of their seats as the moratoriums near an end, town boards are remaining quiet, and questions remain on Board members' conflicts of interests.

Not sure where you live Honey, and you probably read this, but here is the link for all to read a tidbit of information regarding the future of the County's ridges:


http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2006/12/11/dcwind051.html (broken link)

AND, an interesting article that many may like regarding the opposition of the Interconnection Power Lines (another HUGE battle for residents) with the request to turn off all the lights for several hours to make a point. Thought ya'll would like that as it has been part of our discussion-what would happen if individuals worked hard to make a small difference every day on consumption! Enjoy

http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2006/12/12/tgnyrilightsout7.html (broken link)

[honeychrome]

I understand ridiculing and rejecting the facts of global warming- it's a PITA, it is scary, and to do something about it requires us to change the way we live and conduct business, and we generally don't like to change. Personally I love the internal combustion engine- I like nothing more than to spend the weekend riding around back-roads on my motorcycle, or spending a month driving cross-country. A big car or SUV 'feels' safer, and who doesn't want to feel safer? Coming home to a dark house or entering a dark room is unsettling, so of course we want to leave all the lights on- a lit up house in the dark is inviting. Wearing an extra layer or long undewear is confining- it's easier and more comfortable to just turn up the heat. I understand all those things, and when someone comes along telling us we've got to change, immediately we want to reject it. I like riding my motorcycle/ATV/whatever- leave me alone and don't tell me what to do! But if you take some time to look at the facts (just the facts, never mind all the solutions being proposed), it gets harder and harder to justify doing so many things that really amount to burning energy purely for entertainment or a false 'sense' of security. It feels like a waste and it feels wrong- I'm going to leave a mess for my children to clean up so I can have fun riding around on my motorcycle all weekend?

As far as the 'coming ice-age' prediction of the 70's- that was just one speculation based on real measurements of the exponentially increasing amount of man-made polllution in the atmosphere. The theory was that the pollution 'cloud' would start to block the suns rays from reaching the earth and things would start to get colder. A plausible theory, though now with ever increasing pollution we've found that that isn't what happens- instead, the suns rays don't get blocked so much on their way in, but the ones that used to hit the earth and bounce back out into space get trapped by the 'cloud', causing the atmosphere to get warmer. But whether things get colder or hotter doesn't matter so much- the fact is that increasing pollution in a system causes some kind of change to that system, and many of the things that we need to support human life on this planet can only survive in a pretty narrow range of circumstances. Sure, we can adapt, and can adapt more than most other living things, but if the other living things we depend on can't adapt enough along with us, we're screwed. It seems foolhardy to play around with those circumstances to the extent that we are, just so I can leave all the lights on in my house or zip around on my motorcycle.

There are vast amounts of data and evidence proving global climate change- the disintegration of huge ice shelves and melting of the polar caps, the melting of the permafrost, rising frost lines, desalination of parts of the oceans, expansion of malarial mosquitos habitat.... But nevermind the whole global warming thing- we are creating vast amounts of pollution and waste regardless, though for a long time we've been able to do a pretty good job of hiding it and keeping it out of sight and out of mind, but now that's failing. All living things create some kind of waste/pollution, and the environment can absorb and use a certain amount- but it reaches a saturation point. More and more locations are measuring increasing amounts of contaminants in groundwater, in the air... Do we really want that?

Anyway, weren't we talking about windmills or something?

[looking4home]

But that's normal, honeychrome. That's the natural, normal progression of our planet's climate, and people like you can't accept it. You talk about not wanting change? Some cannot accept the truth, so they are making up false scientific scenarios as they go along to explain what is naturally occuring. Yes, we may not have the earth forever. Get over it! nothing lasts forever, and why should the earth itself be any different?

We are in an interglacial period at the moment, but you probably know that. And what's more, we are at the end of it, which means it will get hotter before it gets colder. Much, much colder. That's what you should be worrying about - how another ice age is creeping closer, and how humans can adapt much better to warm than to hot. Did you know that scientists are fairly certain that the Middle Ages were also had a warming period, similar to ours now? And then it cooled off drastically, and that wasn't as good for things such as agriculture. But people adjusted and survived. that's what many scientists who are skeptical about the causes of global warming suggest - don't panic, or neccessarily try and change that which cannot be changed. Just try to adapt and survive. It's what humans do best.

[honeychrome]

The amounts of CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gasses in the atmosphere now are far, far greater than they've ever been, as measureable over thousands of years through polar ice core samples, and this is a result of human activity, not a result of 'natural' climate cycles. The concern is not about the natural climate change cycles, which have occurred very slowly allowing for adaptation and the range of change has been such that adaptation is possible. The concern is that this time, because of human activity (specifically the burning of vast amounts of fossil fuels), the change will be much greater and occur much faster than in past cycles. Don't worry, be happy? A population contraction over a significant period of time doesn't bother me, but a die-off of a majority (if not all) of human kind does. Very likely I'll be gone before then, but it's not something I want to leave for my children of grand-children to deal with, particularly if relatively small changes we can make can make a difference. If you were in a car speeding toward a cliff would you try and stop it from going over the cliff, or just think, "Maybe I'll survive the crash, maybe I won't- so be it?"

The scientific consensus is that global warming resulting from human activity is real, and what we are seeing is not simply the result of 'natural' cycles. There is plenty of disagreement on the overall extent, what it means, what to do about it, but not about whether it is real. It is a fairly small number of scientists who are disputing man's role in global warming, mostly on the payroll of busninesses who's profit is dependent on our consumption patterns remaining status quo.

But nevermind global warming. If there are cleaner, renewable and more efficient ways to do things, why not work toward doing them that way? If turning out the lights when you leave a room or driving a smaller car leaves a smaller stain on the planet, why not do it? Likewise wind, solar, etc. etc.

"Just try to adapt and survive. It's what humans do best." Exactly what this is all about.

[looking4home]

But how do we reconcile living in a fast-paced, high-tech world, with turning the clock back to the 19th century, as far as our energy comsumption goes? I'm all for walkable communities and using less of everything, but we are getting mixed messages in our society. For instance, people want to travel a lot.The airports, despite terrorism and the inconveniences that come with it, are packed. Airplanes use jet fuel, and are polluters, yet because air fare is now affordable, everyone travels, and it is an encouraged practice, almost unviersally. The same with trains that emit diesel particulate matter, an identified carcingoen. But we need more and more trains to transport goods to a wider area as people move to newly developed parts of the country. The same goes for trucks.
this forum is full of dissatisfied people looking to move to various areas of the country, some of which were once sparsely populated. this contributes to global warming in two ways: As I mentioned, the transport of goods to these areas, and also the commute time, as many of these new developments are out in the sticks, and some type of commute is neccesary.
Another big issue - and I think this is as respeonsible for global warming as fossil fuel, is urban heat islands. That is, when former open space gets paved over with concrete and asphalt, and the effect it has when it absorbs/reflects the sun's rays. It's happening in my own town, and the local paper did a story on it, which was fascinating. They comapred weather data bewteen out town, and the one adjacent, and how our temp has gone up a lot more in the last few decades. The reason why they think, is because of all the growth we have experienced, and the building that has gone on. Our town grew from a population of 50,000 to almost 110,000 in 10 years time!
There are also other theories that dispute the fossil fuel idea, like the increased frequency of sun flares, which effect the earth's temp. In reality, it is probably a combo of all of these things, some man-made and some not. I just am not going to go nuts worrying about it. I guess I don't have strong survivalist instincts!

[JustSayNo]

The Top Ten False and Misleading Claims the Windpower Industry makes for Projects in the Eastern United States
http://www.stopillwind.org/lowerleve...t=topten_intro

Here is an interesting point-by-point on the turbines. Sorry guys and gals, just trying to keep some focus on the OPs topic.

Anyone know what Andes Planning Board decided last night? Their Moratorium ended today and the Town Board meets tonight to hear the Planning Board's recs.! They have a problem with a new Plan. Board memeber's conflict of interest.

I know Bovina Planning Board meets on the 18th and Stamford on the 20th! Yikes, busy up here in Delaware County!

[JustSayNo]

Andes extended their moratorium for another 6 months

[JustSayNo]

Cherry Valley's town board, on Thursday, Dec. 14, voted 2-1, in favor of a “gold standard” wind ordinance that may stop Reunion Power from building 24 turbines on East Hill. The gold standard's main issues are setbacks and maximum allowed noise levels.

The ordinance states that turbines would have to be at least 2,000 feet from the nearest off-site residence, school or church, and 1,200 feet from the nearest lot line. It also calls for noise levels to be less than six decibels higher than ambient levels at lot lines.

Reunion Power, the developer, has said in the past the noise standards and setbacks contained in the ordinance are prohibitively restrictive and would kill the project. I guess that means Reunion expects the turbines to make more noise than the six decibels higher than ambient levels at lot lines, and they want to erect the monsters CLOSER than 2,000 feet to human-occupied structures.

Good for you Cherry Valley, protecting your taxpayers with strict, yet possible, guidelines!

[honeychrome]

JustSayNo, thanks for the Del. Co. updates. I'm in the far north-west of the county, so don't hear a heck of a lot locally about turbine projects- maybe either our ridges aren't high enough or not enough wind density to be attractive to developers.

I was reading recently about an interesting wind/water combination energy project- I think it was in the Netherlands, but can't remember. Wind power is used to pump water up into a large resevoir, then the water flow from the resevoir is used to run an electric generating turbine. The resevoir essentially acts as a 'battery,' allowing for a consistent supply of power independent of the vagaries of the wind. Of course you need significant space for the resevoir, which creates it's own issues, but it's an interesting idea, particularly for smaller-scale uses.